Every day I sit down to write something on this blog, I'm particularly conscious of how it's changed over the last four years. It started as a personal whinge and discussion of practice, became embroiled in the fight against TR, and now is increasingly becoming a platform for colleagues to record their feelings.
There's no way of knowing how representative the views are, but I've noticed they're changing and if I were sat either in NOMS HQ or the offices of a potential bidder, I'd be worried. What started as disillusionment, anger, frustration and depression is turning into one of resolution, obduracy, and cussedness. This ought to be very worrying indeed for a workforce historically known for it's care, professionalism and willingness to 'go the extra mile'.
You could say it's an astonishing achievement by Chris Grayling to have single-handidly done this to an entire profession, but it's sealed his political fate because we all know TR is going to be an almighty omnishambles. There appears to be precious little goodwill amongst the workforce to try and make it work, and this attitude is so very alien when there's always been a strong ethos to make sure the dual needs of the client and protecting the public remain paramount.
Any employer worth their salt knows that the enterprise will only be successful if the workforce are broadly happy and motivated. Although possibly not essential if you're making widgets, it certainly is in our line of work, depending as it does largely on skills that require judgement, discretion, flexibility and so on. Basically the message is, you've treated the workforce like shit; you haven't listened to sound reason; now you will pay because we're working to rule and doing nothing extra to make this crock of shite work:-
Whilst there does not appear to be job descriptions for CRC or NPS, what is apparent is that CRC's are not involved in writing parole reports or Pre-Sentence Reports. It is clear that this fuck up won't have been sorted out by 01.04.14. What will happen is you will get disillusioned staff giving less of a damn about the transition process and there are also likely to be getting CRC PO's asking when they can stop writing PSRs, parole reports and seeing high risk cases. I have been assigned to NPS and you know what I don't blame CRC PO's for demanding that the above stated tasks are taken from them. If I no longer give a damn, I dread to think what CRC PO's are thinking. In this line of work it is a very dangerous situation to have staff not caring about what happens.
*****************
Pretty scary. But I am not prepared to do things to help the other company. For example if I am in NPS I will not do anything to help CRC and vice versa. I am normally a team player but I disagree with this TR shit and I am not prepared to bust my arse just to make this Tory invention easy for Grayling and his cronies.
So in that scenario if I was in CRC excuse my French, but my response if I was asked to see tier 4 high risk offender would be "fuck off, I am part of the inferior company, its not my job. Get someone else to do it". In reality I would not say that to an SPO as I respect the SPO's that I have but if I was a CRC staff member in that scenario I would refuse to help in a polite way. Grayling can't have his cake and eat it.
*************
I understand your response and it highlights what is being done to the service as a whole. Not an issue at the moment but soon will be...........along with loads of other stuff we take for granted at the moment.
***************
I absolutely 100% agree with the above sentiment. I am a PO with 14 years experience who has opted for the CRC as the best of a bad choice for a number of ideological and personal reasons and I am very clear about what it means to have a contractual obligation and the limits of role responsibility. There are issues of employment liability insurance and the risk of being sued if you work beyond your brief . PO 's are all aware (for example) that we cant give legal advice (as per a solicitor) as we're not insured to do so, and so I've no intention of writing PSRs or facing a parole board with judgements I am no longer being paid to make - barristers will have a field day challenging decisions their client didn't like on these grounds. I'm quite clear in my own mind that there can be no such thing as 'business as usual' post April 1st whilst the new systems limp into place.
*******************
I was auto assigned to NPS and see myself as unlucky because I don't want to work in a prison and it is very likely that is where most of us will end up, followed by redundancy. I think the scenario outlined by anon at 06:07 is plausible. I will not work outside of my remit (whatever that turns out to be). And what about CRC? Where did the suggestion that a PO will not write PSRs (SDRs in new speak) come from? The majority of PSRs are written on medium and low risk offenders although in my area PSO grade staff write FDRs to remove the need for so many PSRs. If it wasn't so tragic this whole mess would be hilarious. I suggest any clever heads of our university business schools start looking at TR immediately as there is so much to learn about how NOT to implement a change process or achieve intended outcome.
Post April 2014...staff in the CRC and NPS should only follow the protocols for communication between the two organisations (as we all know that they are rudimentary at best and unworkable and given the vast areas that SPOs are likely to have to cover staff likely to be encouraged to take short cuts) and not try to make the whole damn car crash work, in that way it is likely that the MOJ will be hoist by their own petard......
****************
Oh I will, I will definitely follow the protocols to the letter, I can be very pedantic when I want to be.
*****************
Me too, you want us to deliver your plan Mr Grayling ? I will to the letter and full stop!
*****************
I have also opted for the CRC - I say "opted for"; I haven't received my letter detailing my allocation yet, but on the basis of discussions with other staff I know that most in my area made their Expression of Interest for the NPS. So I'm presuming that the CRC will hardly be over-subscribed and therefore I shouldn't have to go through any sifting process. Mind you, given the way this whole omnishambles has gone so far, I could hardly be surprised if I ended up allocated to the NPS.
Anyway, I had a series of reasons for this choice, from the personal to the petulant. At a personal level, I've been formally located in posts in high risk teams for at least 4 out of my 10 years since qualification, and even when in generic teams have held a high proportion of high risk cases. I know from experience that if I have to hold solely high risk cases again (and let's face it, the NPS caseloads will also be higher than in a current public protection team), then I'll burn out. My health and my family is much more important to me than this job, quite frankly.
If I'm not holding 50+ high risk cases, then I'll be writing non-stop PSRs and doing risk assessments for CRC cases, because the MoJ knows it can't trust private companies not to act in their own interests. At best I'll meet those clients once, probably for 30 minutes or less given the scale of things, and it won't be long before I'll be handed files and told to do assessments based on paperwork alone. I'm not interested in that work - that's not why I joined the service, and I think it's dangerous, so I'll have no part of it.And my petulant reason? I've got a lot of experience of working with high risk cases, some of whom have been high profile locally and nationally. I don't think it would be arrogant to consider myself to be one of the "highly professional experts" that Grayling wants in his NPS. Well he can take a long jump off a short cliff. You want a market in criminal justice, with increased choice in offender provision? Well I'm making my choice. I will not give my skills to a Ministry that can shaft 18,000 staff members, thousands of their families, a quarter of a million clients, and millions of members of the public in England & Wales, any longer. In fact, petulant may not be the right word - I'm livid.
*****************
I'm with you on all you say, Anon. I think the risk of burn out amongst NPS will be high, and I also baulked at the idea of writing assessments or even worse RECALLING to prison people I had never met. I too regard myself as in the 'highly skilled' camp having held predominantly high risk cases for many years, and so also get quite a bit of satisfaction from making my considerable skills unavailable to CG in the new world order. We may have little power, but we wield it where we can........
*********************
I too have opted for CRC. I have over 14 years experience including 4 years in a high risk team. On the sifting basis I am certain due to my high risk caseload on 10.11.13 to have been assigned to the NPS. I also don't think it would be arrogant to consider myself to be one of the "highly professional experts" that Grayling wants in his NPS. It was my experience of working previously in a high risk team taken with the narrowing job profile within the NPS that prompted my choice. The way we have all been treated by NOMS and Grayling gives me no confidence in how the NPS will be run. I am of the opinion that unfortunately many of our colleagues who join the NPS are going to burn out. I put my health, family and happiness above the job. I believe that when this omnishambles comes to pass the apocalypse fall out is going to be Mr Graylings political epitaph.
I sadly share the sentiments of my colleagues. I am CRC bound and, therefore, I have to refer all risky cases back to the NPS for further assessment. Only those of us who understand supervision and the nature of risk can understand how counterproductive this will be in reality. Until now my qualifications and experience have meant I have been able to take appropriate decisions with regards high risk cases. Indeed I have a lot of experience doing so. No more. Now I must send back to NPS who have the authority to make a decision about future management and resource allocation (let's face it, half of the NPS officers will be undertaking a paper review and wont have the benefit of meeting individuals) before declaring whether my assessment is 'correct' or not! How can this be an effective use of my or my colleagues around skills??
ReplyDeleteI will follow the protocol to the letter to illustrate how daft this is. I worry about colleagues in the NPS and if there is a professional disagreement with regards risk - how will this be resolved? Will the Officer (both equally qualified) who has met the individual and developed an understanding of case or the Officer who works in the NPS (purely because they do) have authority?
Ultimately, amongst all this, the service users will find themselves in a confusing experience. The focus will shift from rehabilitation & managing risk to 'who is responsible'? Yes, this is an own goal of epic proportions.
My trust is now exploring the issue of commercial confidentiality whereby CRC and NPS share the same building however they will have to have separate door access fobs (cost anyone) and be banned from popping into each others office for a chat unless on official business, the receptionists are in the CRC so whose responsibility would it be if there was an issue with a CRC case and only NPS staff present or vice versa-these are just some of the basic issues that have to be addressed in the next 10 weeks or so so whats the betting nothing is resolved this year or worst still we develop a hybrid service.....
ReplyDeleteWhen is a cut not a cut? When it is a political gesture (Economist online)
DeleteSINCE Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, decided to mention it on the BBC's "Sunday Politics" this morning, I thought it was worth putting up a quick note on the Conservative Party's new favourite policy of cutting housing benefit for people under the age of 25. Mr Grayling, who has a reputation for having a shaky grasp of statistics, argued that it was unfair for young people who do not work to get housing benefit to pay their rent while other young people (more middle-class ones, presumably) have to carry on living with their parents. Aside from a few exceptions—children coming out of care—why should young people get such a start in life from the taxpayer, he asked? Possibly Mr Grayling is happy to cut the housing benefit of single mothers, sending them back to live with their parents… Mr Grayling seems to imagine that most young people on housing benefit have parents rattling around large empty houses in the suburbs. In reality, many of the parents of housing-benefit claimants will be claimants themselves. Because housing benefit doesn’t cover the cost of any spare rooms, these parents will not be able to house their children without moving house, and then claiming more housing benefit. Take housing benefit away from young people and, in a very large number of cases, it may well simply pop up again in their parents’ claim.
*** At the same time this Government’s divisive behaviour continues:
“Extra support will be provided to victims of hate crimes, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has announced. A new Victims’ Code came into force on Monday, with a focus on helping people from minority communities to deal with reporting crime and the stresses of attending subsequent court hearings. Pre-trial therapy and counselling services will be available, with Mr Grayling pledging “the best possible support” for victims, including those who are regularly targeted by racist criminals.”
*** Meanwhile, form the Gulf Today news online, Grayling and co try to grab more votes:
A government review is set to look into the reasons why some of Britain’s veterans turn to a life of crime after they leave the armed forces.
The review, ordered by Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, will also look at the support provided for ex-service personnel convicted of criminal offences and given custodial or community sentences, and how that support can be improved.
The review, led by Tory MP Rory Stewart, a veteran himself, is expected to last six months and will consider issues including how ex-service personnel are identified on conviction and what advice and support is available to them — as well as looking at effective interventions in other countries.
Grayling said, “After leaving the armed forces the vast majority of veterans continue to make a hugely positive contribution to our country. But for a few the transition to civilian life isn’t always straightforward, and some end up in the criminal justice system. I want to make sure that we take specific account of their needs and experiences and make sure that they get the right rehabilitation to get their lives back together again. It’s the very least we can do for people who put their lives on the line for our country.”
Stewart, MP for Penrith and the Border, who served in the armed forces and also worked as a local official in Iraq and with the voluntary sector in Afghanistan, said, “Veterans have made a unique contribution to our society, and we owe them a huge debt."
Harry Fletcher might have something to say about this???
Or is it they are trying desperately to wriggle out of the ICC investigation into torture and war crimes? At least Blair is speaking at Sharon’s funeral – they say that birds of a feather flock together, don't they?
I used to be really upset about this TR crap. Now I am laughing so that I don't cry. Oh God this shit is so funny. Partnership working at its best, working in same office, but having fobs for each bit. LMAO, LMAO, LMAO. Will CRC be billing NPS for having a CRC receptionist handle its calls?
DeleteDoes Grayling realise that CRC are likely to be managing dv cases that might go to MARAC. Will MARAC statutory agencies be happy with a representative from a private company sitting in on meeting?
How will IOM work? Yeah its going brilliant at the moment. But are the Police gonna be prepared for a partnership to continue with private sector instead of NPS staff?
What a ball CRC staff are going to have. If a CRC cases risk goes up to high lengthy paperwork to transfer it to CRC and then wait and wonder if NPS will accept the case or send it back down. Imagining it now CRC OM says to offender your risk has gone up and now I am fucking you off to NPS, it does not matter that we have developed a good professional relationship and you have confided in me information which has lead me to worry more about the risk you pose to others, you can sod off now.
I am now imagining the scene in a NPS interview room. NPS OM telling OM you have done really well on your licence/order and as you have reduced your risk I am fucking you off to be supervised by a private company now, where another professional will have to get to know you and you will get to know them.
In my area there are already representatives from private companies already sitting on MARACs in the form of the IDVAs. But I take the point - issues of information sharing with new companies (even if it's the same members of staff) are likely to cause problems for some time.
DeleteAnother interesting question is would a private company want to take on the reputational risk of being involved with DV cases? With two women a week killed by partners or ex-partners, we can say that there WILL be murders committed by offenders "supervised" by CRCs, no matter how quickly those 10-page risk escalation reports are completed and wafted over to the harassed NPS worker in the corner.
Lets hope Andrew Neil has read this blog BEFORE he interviews Grayling this morning.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nwyxx
he was asking for questions for Grayling by Twitter
Andrew Hatton
It seems the Probation Service really is so misunderstood, the media feel it's just best left alone. As I think Professor Paul Senior says in the introduction to the bumper special TR edition of the British Journal of Criminal Justice, in a soundbite world, it's not a soundbite Service.
DeleteBBCRadio 4 Point of View was about this - this week -
Deletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nt8br
Probation outsourcing will cause real distress in due course - it is good folk are saying we should not 'make it work' - I thought we should have filled the courts with breaches - as soon as national standards introduced in 1992 - we let long term best interests of probation down, by making that work.
I would not work in a CRC or NPS on the terms that seem likely to prevail - I would find another job which MOST probation workers are able to do, because they have so many transferable skills - they WILL eventually find reemployment elsewhere - especially within SSDs & Psychiatric services , though similar problems will occur in such public employments as them as well.
We need a new system of governance in UK, but it will not happen overnight - as a nation we need to get the economics in balance which is not happening at present whilst we continue to be a global policeman especially as a nuclear weapons holding nation, which is costing more than the nation can stand, as is the excessive detention of criminals.
Andrew Hatton
Just watched Sunday Politics with incredulity. Andrew Neil was so easy on Chris Grayling it beggars belief! Mostly about prisons nothing about probation...
ReplyDeleteIn reality we must face facts, we are on our own and should only rely upon ourselves. That is why we must follow to the letter our new remits when April comes. Not for the sake of subversion ( although that is looking increasingly attractive) but to PROTECT ourselves from blame when this falls apart. Sadly, that may mean SFO's but also likely to be complaints from courts, legal reps, parole board and offenders. I will do what is in my job description ( and please unions fight for us to have these by April) and obey instructions from my employer ( which I will record as such ) but deliver my former high standards by working over and above my hours and missing lunch ? Oh NO never again.
Ditto. I will do what my boss tells me so I won't lose my job. But the days where I stay until 8pm or come in on Saturdays are no more.
Deleteheard the BBC were useless, no mention of grayling messing up probation and selling it to his chums in Capita, A4E, sedexo and geo. What a farce.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has been designated CRC i will do nothing to help this shambles up to april and beyond.
I also watched the Sunday Politics and I am beside myself with contempt for that man! CG smug, belligerent and arrogant tosser....is it really bad to want him to fall flat on his face? How pleased he was to constantly refer to "more people going to prison for longer." Oh and "lets be clear we've just got planning permission for the prison in Wrexham last week". He even tried to defend HMP Jokewood - he is a snake in the grass.... again used the term "Best in Class" well it holds no weight when applied to a high achieving Public Service...does it! There he was seeking applause for his petulant response to cautions....only two then they will go to Court...absolutely no understanding or recognition of the implications of this for Police, Courts and Legal Aid.....bollocks, the man is a raving lunatic. His offensive face and tone of voice leaves me irate...and it's Sunday afternoon, generally a lovely oasis of peace and football in an otherwise busy and stressful week. I am also disappointed with Andrew Neil - twice in one week, allowing that hideous Katie Hopkins to pedal her far right elitist dogma on that programme that follows QT...he also let CG off very lightly, and failed to pick up on this man's desire to follow his ideology, at all costs, not only in the face of criticism, but educated, intelligent debate and factual evidence.
ReplyDeleteI too will be working to my contract, if they give me one, but I will also prioritise our service users, and not this nonsense attempt to push a square peg into a round hole.
Grayling is only in a position to do what he is doing and say what he is saying because he is the current government's secretary of state for Justice, that is the Government of The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in Parliament.
DeleteI do not think it is helpful to personalise the shortcomings of government, but too hold all the parliamentarians equally responsible who support the government AND remember that the members of parliament in the House of Commons are only there because they have won elections in the 650 constituencies throughout the UK.
Maybe we should take more attention about who is elected in the first place and EVEN nominate some candidates who will place public services as their priority issue.
Andrew Hatton
While I agree with may of the comment above can I please make a plea for less of a focus on people being "Highly Skilled " simply as a result of managing high risk cases . That simply serves to demean the work of others who are what average skilled?. How on earth have we reached a stage in the probation service where the core work we undertake i.e. assisting people change their behaviour and move on with their lives is seen as of less importance than managing/monitoring risk . Having been in the for some 24 yrs from PSO to SPO. I have seen many changes but the core skills remain the same - none being any more important than another .Grayling's plans are divisive enough without us adding to them.
DeleteI think the references to highly skilled is an ironic tongue in cheek reference to a previous MOJ briefing and Mr Graylings references to the new NPS rather than undermining core skills
ReplyDeleteI can only speak for myself, but any reference I make to "highly skilled" is quoting Grayling's cack-handed efforts at denigrating an entire profession and claiming that most of our work can be done by anyone with a pulse.
DeleteI too think or "highly skilled" as an pee take. I have seen managers with 20 plus years of experience being sifted to CRC and managers with a couple of years experience being sifted to NPS. I know 1 PO where I'm based who has lots of years of experience of high risk cases, who has decided to stick 2 fingers up for NPS and expressed an interest for CRC. Until a few days ago I thought that he was nuts, I was that he had consigned himself to a countdown until he loses his job.
DeleteI have got NPS and the colleagues of mine who also have NPS think that they are safe and are feeling sorry for those sent to CRC. They think that they are safe, as they are in a public sector company and of course the public sector never cuts jobs does it (sarcasm).
I'm wondering what is the catch to NPS apart from the increased likelihood that I will be taking beta blockers and anti-depressants from the endless run of PSRs, parole reports, lifer reviews, oral hearings. With me being in the civil service now will that mean that I am likely to have to be based miles away from where I live like to a central basis (this causes me worry as I have a young child), then only go to my current work area when I see clients at a satellite base. No one should feel safe under this nonsense and getting what you want might also be a curse as well as blessing (said by someone who asked for NPS, got NPS and is now shitting bricks)
When MOJ/Grayling use the term "highly skilled" about NPS staff please see this for what it is: for now Grayling very much needs the NPS staff to give him a political safety net to alleviate the main concerns of parliamentary colleagues about this group of offenders ( the only group they understand because of alarm about them). In the main, it is the NPS staff who can make him crash and burn now so he/they butter them up. Once the split is up and running the level of skills those staff possess will no longer be required because they are too expensive and the new systems will mean such skills are err REDUNDANT. Jobs will be evaluated on new ( read less expensive) skill sets and terms and conditions eroded further.The rest? Well, they ( we ) are no longer his concern because market forces in the private sector ( surplus of appropriate staff) will also force costs ( terms and conditions) down. So too will increase use of technology. Sadly the idiots in charge of this simply do not understand that what works in probation is not measurable or quantifiable, rather it is committed, altruistic and skilled workforce and you will recognise that very body of professionals is so demotivated and angry that there is not a hope in hell that this will work. Watch this space for some serious attempts to try to regain staff morale because alarm bells are starting to ring. I, for one, will never cooperate but they will never be able to prove it !!
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I realise the voting public got the Demotition Team into Government, due to voting figures, demographics, postcodes, anger and apathy...but I make no apologies for targeting Mr Grayling, nor will I make excuses for him.....he is the architect and main driver of this debacle, assisted by co-pilot Wright, and therefore he/they should and will be held accountable. As one of the electorate, I have every right to question, and challenge our Government and those given the authority and mandate to Govern.
ReplyDeleteI read this blog everyday and I take note of the sheer desperation and exasperation of colleagues and I fear for them, but because we are a resilient and resourceful bunch, I know the majority will overcome this attack upon our profession, our careers, our integrity and some, well they will move onto something new. However, our customers and our communities are also being shafted, and sadly many will suffer injustice and the opportunities we may have helped and encouraged them to secure, will be gone. I will try to be a little more polite in future.
"I make no apologies for targeting Mr Grayling" - absolutely and well said. We are in crisis, we have been shited on by everyone including NAPO and the time for being nice has gone.
Deletereally the unions has been shafted too, they have engaged honestly with processes and have been lied to and manipulated by Grayling/MOJ and NOMS. Unions are not miracle workers or have the benefit of second sight. Who amongst us all could have predicted this mess?
DeleteI have been talking with many probation officers and the message that comes through loud and clear is that the dedication which Grayling has failed to notice will be reverted into ensuring that TR will never work. There is already talk of leaks (whistle blowing) to local newspapers regarding risk and system/process issues. I wonder what it might be like come 1/4/14. I wonder whether any private company who might be thinking of showing an interest in CRC/Mutuals whether they will be interested in managing a company that is willing to purposely cause as much disruption as possible. If the charity sector takes over mutuals the cost will inevitably involve changes to T&C. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out that staff will never aim to deliver the kind of service that probation under statutory control delivers at present. Times have certainly changed and now it is time for the workers to rise and resist any Gov attempt to make TR work.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure we'd even need to actively cause disruption. I haven't seen the latest Target Operating Model (as firstly I have better things to do, and secondly flow charts send me into an irrational blind rage) but I think we can be fairly certain that it won't work. Not just because it's been developed by NOMS (whose grasp of probation niceties has never been exactly brilliant) or that it will have been drawn up to favour the interests of the primes bidding to take on the CRCs (because if they're scared off by the job, then the whole house of cards comes down.)
DeleteThe main reason why, I think, we can be confident of things falling apart pretty swiftly is that there's never been an effective model of running probation. In my trust we've had restructuring exercises on average every 18 months, and I bet we're not alone in that. The model of specialist teams doesn't work, because skills are lost outside those specialisms, and the generic model doesn't work because without the economies of scale of specialism, there aren't enough staff. There are two reasons, in my opinion, why the show stays on the road: staff goodwill and desire to make things work for the safety of the public, clients and colleagues (aka a public service ethic); and constant change - in other words oscillating between those two models, or some kind of fudge somewhere in between.
What TR will do - and this would be the case even if all staff everywhere were completely behind it - is remove the second of those factors, the potential for change: after those contracts are signed, there will be no going back. The logic of the private sector is to deliver what you've contractually agreed to do, for the lowest possible cost. Once a CRC has agreed to do X, for Y £million per year, NOMS can ask them to do Z until they're blue in the face, but the CRC still only has to deliver X. NOMS either pays more, picks up the slack itself, or lets communities suffer the consequences (I think Option C is most likely).
Any staff member in the CRC who tries to go beyond their narrow remit (as they might today) will be using resources inefficiently, and putting their job at risk come appraisal time - let alone the issues raised previously about exceeding roles jeopardising insurance and so on. I know Probation managers, as a whole, are pretty low on business acumen, but surely those looking to feather their CRC nests will grasp this point fairly quickly.
Come April Fool's Day (Grayling's birthday, as I never tire of pointing out) we will be in a very interesting phase. The CRCs will be Government-owned, so there will still be a possibility of adjusting the TOM - but any fiddling about is only likely to make the primes less interested, or more likely to jack their bids up remorselessly. This is where staff non-compliance (or compliance to the letter of the model and our shiny new contracts) will be interesting, as the cracks appear, and the mandarins frantically realise that we haven't been scaremongering for the last 12-18 months. I sincerely hope there is already some real panic about all of this down in Whitehall.
I wonder if Chris Grayling remembers a game show which had Paul Daniels called "EVERY SECOND COUNTS". When a recall is carried out time is of the essence, Can a timely recall occur when CRC has to justify to NPS why a recall should be carried out and then NPS has to then find a highly worked OM to write up recall report?
ReplyDelete...first you have to find 'highly worked OM' to write up the recall. If I am busy then I am busy. I will not hesitate to go to my manager to help organise my workload. I get paid to be managed so if you want me to write a report then you manage me.
DeleteAnd that's my concern. How will a NPS manager be able to get a OM who is already under lots of pressure to write a recall report on someone they don't know from Adam.
DeleteCan I just ask if anyone has been effected in the sifting process by being on maternity when the sample was taken or just returned/ or about to leave. In my trust it appears that all have been directed to CRC and wanted to know if this was a common theme.
ReplyDeleteI'm on maternity and in CRC. I also am being asked to fill in crb forms etc and take documents into work. Ill be ringing them on Monday. Which part of 'I'm on maternity leave' don't they get?
DeleteI know someone who has been sent to CRC who was on maternity leave during that date. What did was sift a few months before she went off on maternity leave. However, what manager knowing that someone is going to be going on maternity leave shortly after, is going to allocate a load of cases particularly high risk to someone who is about to go off work for a while
DeleteI went on maternity leave from a high risk team (role was then auto assigned to NPS) upon my return to work I was put in another team and now CRC. The person covering my maternity leave stayed in role and is NPS.
DeleteI have a question, can they make us do all these things and go into offices etc when we are on maternity leave? My reading if the legislature is that they can't? Am I correct in this? Can we make them wait til we return to work?
ReplyDeleteApologies that my 14:42 post appeared half way up the page - not sure what I did wrong there... my point to be made with that post was that Grayling's done his job with probation, its in the past to him; he's already got his eyes on a bigger prize and not much is going to get in the way of that. The AQ's on BBC revealed that - another poster referred to the fact that Grayling's answers are now programmed responses; in my view, because its now meaningless and history to him.
ReplyDeleteThe architects of this omnishambles have been those in NOMS who are the modern day equivalents of Sir Humphrey, the egocentric civil servants who feed off the system. Look at what NOMS costs, how they protect themselves, how they dictate what happens, how they smugly redirect any and all PR shite over anyone & everyone but themselves. For example,
Director of Probation - Mike Maiden was appointed, unappointed within hours and a new Director named and in situ before you could wipe your arse. No explanations, no accounts given to anyone. "Personal" was the cover story. I don't want to rake through Mike Maiden's personal life but for the appointment to such a key job worth a lot of public money to be handled in such a cloak and dagger manner is just another disgrace to hang on NOMS's wall of shame.
NOMS was created for exactly the current situation, it was merely waiting for the right political climate. Micro-managerialists and macro-egotists who don't give a shit about "practice issues". Look to your own Trusts and see who migrated to NOMS or who has spent time being groomed there. Watch as their names begin to appear on the lecture circuit about TR, or as independent consultants about TR, as CEOs or other highly paid roles linked to TR - mainly in the CRCs. They were once our colleagues. Its their small-mindedness and greed that has merely been held in abeyance until someone as ambitious like Grayling came along, facilitated by the political wilderness which the LibDems handed on a plate to the Tories... a perfect storm?
So where does that leave us? Up Shit Creek, no paddle, no boat, no lifejacket, in the midst of an Omnishambles.
Dear 18:26 I might be up shit creek, but at this time THEY still need me to deliver....well guess what ?
ReplyDeleteI have worked in Probation for all but 4 years of the 28 since I qualified. Although I hold a CQSW I have virtually no hope of getting a job as a social worker (not sure I'd want one though) due to the requirements for registration but nor do I hold a "Probation" qualification. I have asked what measures will be put in place to secure "equivalent" qualifications... no-one knows. I have been sifted into the NPS. No, it's not safe but I am hoping it will be secure enough for long enough so that I can pay the bills, see what other options I may have if/ when needed and put myself in the strongest position possible to get another job. I did not envisage having to do that as even after this long, I still enjoyed what I did/ do and if I'm honest despite everyone saying we all have oodles of transferable skills, I am not sure what else I would want to do! Depressing really! I don't blame anyone for sticking rigidly to their remit post 1st April, I do wonder though where that will put SPOs... a certain filling in a particular sandwich, maybe.
ReplyDeleteI Have only been in the service a few years and for me, learning from my experienced colleagues has been key. However since this utter crap has started a number of my experienced colleagues have handed their notices in!! What does that say. .? Im due to qualify as a PO soon, but what my job will be when I qualify compared to when I applied will be very different!!
ReplyDeleteWhat I will say to all the above is good luck with keeping to your remits as I have heard that transition period of roles and cases etc go right up to June 2015.
ReplyDeleteThis would not surprise me. No doubt Grayling has read his runes (aka opinion polls) and recognises that he'll be on the other side of the House come May 2015, and has decided to leave the steaming bag of turd that is the fallout from TR to whoever takes over.
DeleteI'm sure this can't be right - after all that nice Mr Grayling told us that he wanted us to have certainty about what we're doing - and he wouldn't LIE, would he?
Delete